Skip to main content
. 2017 May 19;30(7):1–7. doi: 10.1093/dote/dox042

Table 2.

Baseline and post-treatment endoscopic and histologic findings

All (n = 55) Nonresponders (n = 28) Responders (n = 27) p*
Endoscopic findings, n (%)
Baseline
 Rings 43 (78) 24 (86) 19 (70) 0.21
 Furrows 36 (65) 21 (75) 15 (56) 0.13
 Stricture 41 (74) 18 (64) 23 (85) 0.12
 Narrowing 24 (44) 16 (57) 8 (30) 0.06
 Crepe-paper mucosa 2 (4) 2 (7) 0 (0) 0.49
 White plaques 20 (36) 8 (29) 12 (44) 0.22
 Decreased vascularity 20 (36) 11 (39) 9 (33) 0.65
Post-treatment
 Rings 37 (67) 24 (86) 13 (48) 0.003
 Furrows 31 (56) 23 (82) 8 (30) <0.001
 Stricture 22 (40) 11 (39) 11 (41) 0.91
 Narrowing 17 (31) 10 (36) 7 (26) 0.43
 Crepe-paper mucosa 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) N/A
 White plaques 15 (27) 7 (25) 8 (30) 0.70
 Decreased vascularity 13 (24) 8 (29) 5 (19) 0.38
Peak eosinophil counts (mean eos/HPF ± SD)
 Baseline 82.5 ± 76.6 85.8 ± 66.9 79.1 ± 86.7 0.75
 Post-treatment 34.7 ± 37.0 61.1 ± 30.2 2.5 ± 4.5 <0.001
Esophageal diameter (mean mm ± SD)
 Before dilation 11.2 ± 3.4 10.8 ± 3.5 11.7 ± 3.3 0.35
 After dilation 16.2 ± 2.5 15.8 ± 2.7 16.6 ± 2.1 0.19
Increase in esophageal diameter after dilation (mean mm ± SD) 4.9 ± 2.7 5.0 ± 2.8 4.9 ± 2.7 0.92
Number of total dilations needed, after treatment (mean ± SD)
 Unadjusted 3.0 ± 4.3 4.1 ± 4.8 1.9 ± 3.4 0.05
 Adjusted 4.6 ± 4.6 1.6 ± 4.6 0.03

*Means compared with t-test and proportions compared with chi-square.

Diameter reflects the initial dilator size used before dilation, and the last dilation size used for the final dilation on record.

Adjustment for age, gender, presence of a focal stricture, initial esophageal diameter, and presence of dysphagia using multiple linear regression.